Research Links Climate Science Denial To Conspiracy Theories, But Skeptics Smell A Conspiracy

Research Links Climate Science Denial To Conspiracy Theories, But Skeptics Smell A Conspiracy

IF the world's conspiratorial blogosphere was broken up into food items on a wedding buffet table, then an eclectic array of plate-fillers would surely be on offer.

There would be canapés topped with faked moon landings and hors d'oeuvres of Government-backed plots to assassinate civil rights leaders.

Sandwich fillings would come from US military staff at Roswell in New Mexico (cheese and alien, anyone?). The alcoholic punch would be of the same vintage as that which the British Royal family gave Princess Diana's chauffeur, as part of their plot to kill her. All of the catering would be provided by the New World Order.

Then there's the salad of human-caused climate change being a hoax, with the world's climate scientists, national academies and the declining Arctic sea-ice all in on the conspiracy.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Western Australia (UWA), is about to publish research which shows that a strong indicator of the rejection of climate science is a willingness to accept conspiracy theories.

The study details the results of a controlled online questionnaire posted on blogs between August and October 2010.

Among the conspiracy theories tested, were the faking of Apollo moon landings, US government agencies plotting to assassinate Martin Luther King, Princess Diana's death being organised by members of the British Royal family and the US military covering up the recovery of an alien spacecraft that crashed in Roswell, New Mexico.

In the paper, Lewandowsky concludes that “endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories… predicts rejection of climate science”. The research also claims a correlation between people who endorse free-market economics and the “rejection of climate science”.

He told DeSmogBlog:

There's a fair bit of previous literature to suggest that conspiratorial thinking is part of science denial. Conspiratorial thinking is where people would seek to explain events by appealing to invisible, powerful collusions amongst individuals, rather than taking events at face value. The absence of evidence for the conspiracy is sometimes taken as evidence of its existence and any contradictory evidence is itself embedded into the conspiracy.

In his paper, Lewandowsky adds: “Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientic findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.”

Given the well documented links between free market think-tanks and climate science misinformation, this finding isn't surprising.

But back to that “conspiracist ideation” trait which Lewandowsky and other researchers, such as Pascal Diethelmand Martin McKee, have identified among people who reject science.

Because rather fittingly, no sooner had Lewandowsky's paper begun to make headlines than the world's loose, nimble and definitely-not-conspiring network of climate skeptic blogs began to construct their own conspiracies about Lewandowsky's research.

The survey was conducted online and Lewandowsky's research team approached climate blogs requesting they post a link to the survey. Some eight “pro-science” blogs agreed to post the link, which gained 1147 responses.

Lewandowsky's researchers also emailed five popular skeptic blogs, but none of those approached posted the link to the questionnaire.

But had Lewandowsky actually fabricated the claim he had emailed five sceptic blogs, asked Anthony Watts, Jo Nova and others, smelling a consipracy.

“If Lewandowky’s claim about five skeptic blogs was fabricated, it appears to me that it would be misconduct under university policies,” wrote McIntyre.

Once McIntyre had come down from the conclusion he had just jumped to, he later admitted that actually, he had been emailed by one of Lewandowsky's researchers after all but offered a “dog ate my homework” excuse.

Meanwhile, Lewandowsky says he has been “inundated” with requests to release the names of the four remaining bloggers his team contacted.

But since the approaches to bloggers were conducted on the presumption of privacy, the academic has asked his university's ethics committee and the Australian Psychological Society if he is free to release their identities.

So now there's a conspiracy theory going around that I didn't contact them. It's a perfect, perfect illustration of conspiratorial thinking. It's illustrative of exactly the process I was analysing. People jump to conclusions on the basis of no evidence. I would love to be able to release those emails if given permission, because it means four more people will have egg on their faces. I'm anxiously waiting the permission to release this crucial information because it helps to identify people who engage in conspiratorial thinking rather than just searching their inboxes.

Lewandowsky revealed that two of the five skeptic blogs approached even replied to the email they were sent.

One stated “Thanks. I will take a look” and another asked “Can you tell me a bit more about the study and the research design?”

Perhaps an inbox search for these phrases might help some bloggers to move on from their latest conspiracy theory.

Or maybe, just maybe, the real story is that the New World Order hacked their email accounts or a CIA operative secretly dropped a memory-lapse drug into their fake moon juice?

Previous Comments

It's amazing how many times I run into tin foil hat wearing nutters that actually believe that.

Who would be in charge? Does everyone uber elite have the same say? Is there a power of veto? Is there any chance whatsoever, of countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, Arab countries etc sitting down and agreeing with countries like the USA and using climate change as the tool for them to control the worlds population?

It's just so implausible. But sucks so many in who refuse to think, or perhaps smoke too many drugs.

I'd already concluded that folks like Watts is engaged in 'conspiracy theory' work. Its not like his high school education has geared him up to deal with real world science or technical work.

Of course… before the nutters loose it here, its important to point out some valid statistics that always confound and confuse them. Correlation does not equal causation. Interesting… the deniers are always looking for patterns but seem to miss this important fact.

I've actually been accused of being some sort of plant by a green group. (Pun?) And I won't deny that I think that a lot of these deniers are paid to do exactly this. Of course, facts support my thinking;

Corporations aren't monitored for their activities in the same way the government is, and their PR campaigns are already extensive. How can businesses make more inroads into the public mind? Hmmm?

How come deniers seem to disappear during elections? My usual crop of cabbage heads has disappeared from Canadian news papers during the Republican presidential ramp up. (Maybe its all in my mind… but I don't think so.)

I'm guessing that most deniers are more interested in politics than science, so maybe they are applying their energy to election efforts (whether paid or volunteers).

It was interesting on twitter the other night as many Canadians who follow politics were torn between the Quebec election and the US Democratic speeches. I just follow twitter to find out as much as I need to know about the politics.

I do wonder sometimex if some rightwing trolls commenting on Canadian political websites are Americans, and if they are paid to troll.

I've often accused some posters of being unable to pass a Turing Test. Honestly though… people are hooking up and talking with bots on line. I find that kind of funny.

If you think about it… Twitter\Facebook bots are to people what viruses are to computers. I'm deadly careful when it comes to computer security, I also double check all email links, etc to make sure I'm not getting phished. I'm not about to start chatting with a bot.

All this talk makes me wonder if someone couldn't create a bot detector that works like anti virus software.

Try new Turing Antibot, and zap those pesky bots from your life!

“I've often accused some posters of being unable to pass a Turing Test.”

Some of them are already able to beat the “captcha” phrase technology. We have seen here on this site. And many sites don't even have any sort of measures to determine if the commenter is human or not e.g. denier blogs.

If there is any sort of conspiracy, it is an oil funded, lobbyist, astroturfing manufactured outrage to hold up climate science and to delay action, in the name of fossil fuel profits.

Deniers accept that the tobacco industry did it, but find it inconceivable, that the collective fossil fuel industry could engage in such thing, despite being hundreds of times larger than the tobacco industries.

Entrenched Oil interests will be working in favour of the global warming crusade. This misinformation will further entrench their position in the energy mix. The net effect of the global warming fraud is to get in the way of competing energy development that actually works and is cost-effective.

There is no point in someone as dense as you reading anything I say. It would be like a baboon or a yak wrinkling its forhead in a futile attempt to comprehend. But major oil interests represent the status quo. The CO2 fraud is a hindrance to new energy development. So of course the entrenched interests are quite happy with this science fraud.

“Entrenched Oil interests will be working in favour of the global warming crusade.”

I think I am yet to see an argument from you, which has any logic or rationality.

If the oil interests are in favour of “the global warming hoax”, then why do they spend so much to oppose it and why do they so openly oppose taxation or regulation that will not only affect their profits, but invite unwelcome competition.

“The net effect of the global warming fraud is to get in the way of competing energy development that actually works and is cost-effective. “

“Correlation does not equal causation. Interesting… the deniers are always looking for patterns but seem to miss this important fact.”

Yes, they are big on the “we have had high CO2 before and there were no SUV's, therfore, this time it's the same, it's all natural.”

Another conspiracy theory I like is, the scientists are paid to find AGW, so they invent stuff to fit a square peg into a round hole. They don't consider that the scientists get paid no matter what.

Or the CT that it's a socialist political agenda created by liberals…….except the theory was in place before any of these ideological parties existed. And they forget the fact that just as many conservative parties have been involved over the years….duh.

“I've actually been accused of being some sort of plant by a green group. (Pun?) And I won't deny that I think that a lot of these deniers are paid to do exactly this. Of course, facts support my thinking;

I remember being passed this last year about a paid internet troll. I'm sure they exist.

And they don't find it ironic, that the deniers use the same proxies to assert their position, as the devices used by AGW realists that they accuse of being rigged. They don't mind their tax payer dollars being spent on satellites and research etc….if it supports their position. If it doesn't…..it's “MYTAXPAYERDOLLARSBEINGWASTED!!!”.

Note that this nonsense about “dimensions” comes straight from mainstream crank science. And is here adopted by non-mainstreamers, pretty much holus-bolus. The idea of more than three dimensions has nothing to it. But it fuels all sorts of fantasies, mainstream and otherwise. Mainstream crank science is ubiquitous and is held aloft by relentless lying and the cult of personality. Conspiracy may be present in every case of it or in some cases and not in others. One doesn't want to take an unscientific point of view towards conspiracy.

The Professor may be onto something here in 2012. But had he taken the same survey in 2007, he'd likely have found no correlation at all. When I looked into global warming seriously for the first time in 2005 I suspected no conspiracy. I was quite used to the idea of mass-hysteria, the madness of crowds, and this sort of thing. I didn't think then that this business was being directed from the top. Only later did the top-down direction become apparent. And as for the Apollo hoax, I only started looking into that one a couple of months ago.

So the Professor may be right in 2012, would probably have been wrong in 2007, but its all besides the point. It doesn't matter if its stupidity, or wickedness, so long as we stick to science and reason. So long as we worry about the scientific evidence, and block out all pseudo-evidence, then we will wind up with the right idea as a society. I've never witnessed either Graham Readfearn or the Professor make a scientific argument once. Not even once.

Stick with the evidence and the conspirational forces at the top will have little effect.

The US Navy and Russian Navy are in on it too! And those pesky Canadian ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) Units are faking all that data too, they even started before there was Climate Change! Imagine that!

Yup… American soldiers scoff at treason! In yo face they say!

Phil this guy is just running the usual scam. He says a lot, provides no links, or information of any credible value.

The usual gangsters, whom we have seen in other areas, like in the massive banking stealing since 2008 ….. These people appear to have a stranglehold in the US, Great Britain, and the NATO and EU countries. Their influence is felt elsewhere but they really seem to have a grip over the territories mentioned, or the incredible thieving of the bankers couldn't take place. Nor could you have the US geological survey putting about lies, and the UK geological survey echoing the exact same lies.

There is a driving force at the top that is both mutinational and conspirational for sure. This is readily provable. But naturally enough, to explain the entirety of it, you still have to rely on mass hysteria, “the madness of crowds” and this sort of thing.

The global warming fraud is a particularly nasty sort of evil, since its co-opting and using up legitimate concerns for the environment. For example the other day I just saw a very reasonable tv show about how the sea is breaking down all the plastic, and its being micronised and sent all the way through the food chain via the fishes. This is a disaster. As is over-fishing. But everyone is tuckered out by this warming scam run by the usual suspects.

The Lewandowsky paper ties in with various papers and books that point to a well known fact.

“Researchers in history and sociology frequently cite the \manufacture of doubt” by vested interests and political groups as a factor (Jacques, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2008; McCright & Dunlap, 2003, 2010; Mooney, 2007; Oreskes & Conway, 2010; Stocking & Holstein, 2009). For example, over 90% of environmentally sceptical books published since 1972 have been demonstrably sponsored by conservative think tanks (Jacques et al., 2008). Oreskes and Conway (2010) analyzed the shared ideological underpinnings of organized attempts to question well-established scientic ndings over the last few decades, from the link between smoking and lung cancer to the causal role of chloro uorocarbons (CFC's) in eroding the ozone layer to, most recently, the ndings from climate science. Oreskes and Conway documented that a small number of organizations and individuals have been instrumental in those contrarian activities, arguably motivated by a laissez-faire free-market ideology that views as threatening any scientic nding with potential regulatory impact, such asMotivated rejection of science 4 interference with the marketing of tobacco products, bans on CFC's, or a price on carbon (cf. Dunlap & McCright, 2011).”

Even major skeptic sites are in the majority against the denier position and also treat them as conspiracy theorists, take JREF for example.

JREF? You mean Randi's internet sewer? You won't find one skeptical person on that place. They just believe what they're told. They are the most submissive true believers on the planet. Doesn't matter how stupid the idea is. If it purports to be mainstream dogma, they will believe it. These guys are even fans of the Federal Reserve. They think cancer treatment through poisoning, radiation, and cutting is a roaring success. There isn't one dumb idea that has the stamp of mainstream on it that they will ever not bow down to.

That's funny. Clearly there is a lot of woo you believe in they that expose. Destroying faith with facts can be painful I guess.

“You won't find one skeptical person on that place.”

But let me guess. Blogs that are not actual skeptic blogs, but are denier climate change blogs with right wing leanings, are classed as real “skeptics” as far as you are concerned? No true scotsman eh?

“They think cancer treatment through poisoning, radiation, and cutting is a roaring success.”

Randi's internet sewer isn't a skeptical blog. They will believe anything they are told. They will believe CO2 is a pollutant if they are told CO2 is a pollutant. They will believe that astroNOTS can get around on the moon for two days or two hours or any amount of time without exhaliing from their spacesuits if they are told to believe this. There is no such thing as woo, but they will believe there is a thing called woo if the others seem to be believing in woo. So its a fact that this is not a skeptical blog at all. If NASA tells them that comets are snowballs, no snow, no ball no snowball, no evidence for snow or ice ever, still they will believe what NASA tells them. Even though NASA is a giant ripoff machine that lies all the time

Radiation and chemotherapy are excellent ways to rip the public off. But they are terrible ways to make sick people well. They are a ripoff and mass murder rolled into one. Chemotherapy is so toxic to the sick patient, that he knows for a fact that he'll be even sicker when he undertakes it. So he goes out and buys himself a wig. This is one of the really big scandals of the last few decades. They keep killing people every year with this old technology. Its not outdated technology since it was never a good idea. Its just old. Yet every year there is more fundraising for research. The money is pocketed, the research is either useless or largely ignored, and the next year they are back to hurting people with sword, fire, or poison (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy). Its medieval except for the money involved which is stupendous.

“Radiation and chemotherapy are excellent ways to rip the public off. But they are terrible ways to make sick people well.”

Let me guess, Homeopathy is ok though isn't it?

I'm sorry, but radiation therapy and chemo has runs on the board. This is a bit like the anti vaxxer argument. A small percentage of ill effects get the light shone on them and the vast majority of successes are ignored. I know personally of 5 friends and family members that have undergone radiation and chemo therapy. One of the 5 didnt make it.

“Chemotherapy is so toxic to the sick patient, that he knows for a fact that he'll be even sicker when he undertakes it.”

No shit sherlock. Thanks for the newsbreak captain obvious. It's like anti biotics on steroids. Anti biotics ( anti-life) are prescribed an have successfully saved millions of lives, yet it destroys good an the bad inside you. People don't stop taking them.

People <b> know </b> radiation and chemo therapy have runs on the board.

Yes, it kicks your arse and makes you sick and makes you lose your hair. But it's a small price to pay for living.

Don't be idiotic. I'm for going with a strategy based on reason and evidence. Clearly Homeopathy isn't going to make that gig. Radiation and chemotherapy have no runs on the board at all. They are carcinogenic in and of themselves. They are only performed for their money-making capacity and to double down on past crimes. They are no better as treatments then destroying a weed-filled garden in the hope that the roses will grow back. Their failure spans over the decades. They fail year in year out for decades.

But you believe they are valid medicine, since you believe what you are told, and have no time for evidence.

Its not a conspiracy theory. Its demonstratable fact. Plus you've shown yourself to be mentally incompetent by implying that conspiracy doesn't happen. This is untenable since when people wish to do bad things, they will tend to co-ordinate their actions stealthily. So I'll have a backdown from your wrong point of view for starters.

Then roll on with the facts then buddy, knock yourself out. So far you have produced zero facts. Anytimetime you want to replace the rhetoric with facts, we can address tese “facts” and expose this grand conspiracy.

“So I'll have a backdown from your wrong point of view for starters. “

“Do people achieve political goals alone or in groups? When those political goals are wicked or self-serving do they use stealth or are their actions open. “

Only one problem with your assertion. Thas and there are many conservative governments and politicians who not only believe in, but are acting on the science. So far, I'm not getting it, please unravel the conspiracy more for me.

Its a question and not an assertion. Its no mystery that someone who would mix up a question with an assertion would have some difficulty in reading comprehension. Its written in plain English and if you are not getting it the fault is all your own, or perhaps your parents fault. Just keep reading it and reading it and reading it and perhaps one day some sort of dim understanding may sink in.

Good Lord you must be demented. That you have evidence of international collusion doesn't tell you the names and the addresses of the culprits!!!!! Look I just go with the evidence. I lack your gifts of second sight. If I see clear and incontrovertible evidence of international collusion, I don't go into a state of zen and divine, out of thin air, the names and the addresses of the people most culpable for it. Were you looking for their names and addresses? Don't you know what a conspiracy is? A conspiracy is where they won't tell you their names, motives, addresses and so forth.

I can certainly speculate about the nature of the networks doing this. I can certainly speculate on their motives. But the evidence only tells me directly the top down nature of this fraud and its international co-ordination. The main evidence for the conspiracy is the lack of evidence for the movement. The movement is an evidence free zone. But the more direct evidence includes this business with the US geological society.

Now we have the US geological society lying about the level of underwater volcanic CO2 output. And we have the UK geological society lying and using the same excuse. So we assume international co-ordination. Did I claim to be a full-time investigator? I'd have to drop my day job, leave my family, and start looking for the money-trail and the trail of appointments to a string of government organizations.

In general we see that the shadow government appears to have come out of the union of fractional reserve …. with central banking … and with covert operations. Retrospectively we can see that this was always going to happen. Once you tolerate fractional reserve “all else follows with complete certainty, even in the midst of chaos.”

The networks that control this nexus are really the only crowd who can carry out major conspiracies in the Western World. Whereas there may seem to be many conspiracies, and six plots before breakfast, the reality is that there is only one conspiracy. Because there is only one network able to carry all these various activities off. The Mother of all conspiracies came with the meeting on Jekyll Island in 1910. Wherein all these financiers with a London connection conspired against the American public.

If you should ever doubt the reality of conspiracy then read up on the meeting at Jekyll island. You might have to read it each time this demented denial of conspiracy closes in on you.

But i don't have any evidence of that. You supposedly do, but of course, you can't tell us who it is:

“doesn't tell you the names and the addresses of the culprits!!!!!”

Hilarious.

“If I see clear and incontrovertible evidence of international collusion, I don't go into a state of zen and divine, out of thin air, the names and the addresses of the people most culpable for it.”

No of course not. It makes it hard when there is none. Just one, anyone?

“Were you looking for their names and addresses?”

Can't imagine why I would need to.

“Don't you know what a conspiracy is? A conspiracy is where they won't tell you their names, motives, addresses and so forth.”

This just keeps getting funnier. Although, i feel a little sorry for you. There are good mental health wards and medicine for your illness, just sayin. Ok, if you can't supply a name, supply the names of the institutions or who they belong to these people.

“I can certainly speculate about the nature of the networks doing this.”

Speculate away.

“I can certainly speculate on their motives.”

I have the popcorn waiting, bring on the entertainment.

“But the evidence only tells me directly the top down nature of this fraud and its international co-ordination.”

Oh yeah, the one you don't know any names of or who is invloved? Convenient.

“The main evidence for the conspiracy is the lack of evidence for the movement. The movement is an evidence free zone.”

You do realise that the IPCC's AR4 has several thousand references in it don't you?

“Now we have the US geological society lying about the level of underwater volcanic CO2 output.”

Again, provide the citation.

“ Did I claim to be a full-time investigator?”

Did anyone ask if you were?

“The networks that control this nexus are really the only crowd who can carry out major conspiracies in the Western World.”

You do realise that America is not the only country in the world don't you? And that there are many countries that are hostile towards America? How embracive do you think they will be of the idea of these guys running the show or calling the shots?

Therefore you attempt not to be an idiot and pretend that conspiracies aren't happening in the face of evidence that implies conspiracy. Like the Hadley leaks for example. That proved conspiracy to mislead the public. Its really that simple. We don't deny conspiracy when its manifest or even when its likely. The bankers have ramped up their stealing of the US and EU country public since 2008. This is a conspiracy. Its doing wicked things, and the preparation to carry out this massive crime wasn't done all out in the open. Since conspiracies are in fact normal, the study and the thread are ridiculous.

We have a “tone of voice” argument. Which is no argument at all. The argument seems to be “ha ha there is no such thing as conspiracy”… But the dopey UNskeptics who think what they are told won't spit it out what their argument is. Since they have none and hate evidence.

Here we have a fatal flaw with the study and with the thread. Since its manifest that conspiracy is a normal feature of human life, as all history, and any moments reflection demonstrates ….. then what is the point of the study, and of the thread? Are we to believe that the Senators who conspired against Ceaser did so in public? Or are we to believe that they were each required to bring their own knife and participate in the assassination? The whole thread is therefore moronic.

History if full of people acting in groups and doing evil things. Its atypical of them to be planning these evil or self-serving activities publicly. Therefore conspiracy is a normal part of life and only total idiotis would use the idea that conspiracies don't happen as an argument.

Got it so far hey dummy? Not the sharpest tool in the shed right? Sort of got behind the others at school right?

Since conspiracy is established as a normal part of human life, and since we cannot see back in time, behind closed doors, or at great distances, the idea is to look for clear signs of conspirational action, if we so choose to look for evidence of conspiracies, rather then to be in denial about such evidence. This ought not be something which excites a lot of emotional irrationality from people. But those people who think Randi's internet sewer is a beacon of good science as opposed to belly-crawling conformism…. this type of person takes an irrational approach to conspiracy. They are full of Woo these people. They are denialists. They deny the need for scientific evidence. They hate scientific evidence and the perceived need for it.

Are they all stupid? Or are they just evil? This is a healthy argument and I encourage human beings who are real skeptics to discuss this matter in their spare time. But arguments of this sort ignore the reality that movements to do wicked things are made up of many people, some of whom are evil, some of whom are stupid, and when they get together they do things that are both wicked and stupid.

In this particular case they have decided that CO2 is pollution. This is a very stupid thing to say. And its evil too since CO2 is necessary for a healthy biosphere and for life itself. They aren't coming down on the Mercury that is released by coal companies. In fact the same type of people think its good to inject Mercury into babies and small children. Why do the (UN)skeptics think CO2 is a pollutant, and that jacking mercury into babies represents good childcare? Because they have been told to believe this and they will believe what they are told no matter how irrational the proposition is.

Here is incontrovertible proof that at the top there is conspirational action going on. The US Geological survey claimed that above ground CO2 release from volcanos was about the same as undersea volcanic release of CO2. Then you go to the British version of that sort of bureaucracy and they are lying in exactly the same way. Using the 1990 study. Or at least they were both lying in identical ways.

This movement is not without international co-ordination. Likewise with Goddard. Goddard was busted rigging the data. But then NOAA and Hadley were producing similar graphs. So they had to be lying too. We knew that they had to be lying as well, and in a co-ordinated way, even before the Hadley leaks further corroborated that they were rigging the data, in co-ordination with NASA (The Goddard wing). It ought not surprise us that Goddard was lying because lying is what NASA does. But its a serious matter when we have co-ordination which brings in the British as well. So this is definitely a high level shadow government project, this CO2 business.

Usually, statements like that are accompanied by some sort of citation. I can't work out whether a) you think rhetoric and opinion is enough or b) you know your information will come from some deranged CT site and will be laughed out of the room?

“even before the Hadley leaks further corroborated that they were rigging the data”

You do realie that various panels exonerated Phil Jones and showed that the deniers actually couldn't understand what they were talking about….don't you?

“So this is definitely a high level shadow government project, this CO2 business. “

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.